There should be a new rule to allow people to avoid relegation if they score 500 points in a single race, 800 in 2 races, or 900 in 3 races (numbers approximate, but should be stated at beginning of the year).
For paddlers who have to race against such demoted paddlers the difference in standard can be so extreme there is no point in turning up. Far from coverting trophies in the lower division, such paddlers are merely embarassed if they don't win.
This single (flexible, common sense) rule would :
1) remove one of the main incentives to have a separate Veteran's league.
2) save a lot of good paddlers who become injured or ill mid-season from having to beg.
3) improve retention of paddlers, preventing those who can't paddle often enough from just giving up.
4) perhaps alter opinion of those who want more double events (same div on both days)
The cut-off for best 4 or 5 would have to be tougher to slim the divisions as planned, but at least you could ensure that only the weakest paddlers are demoted.
Avoiding demoting paddlers too good for relegation - Not penalising infrequent paddlers
I don't see why it would remove the need to have a Vet's league? As I understand it P/1 Vets are basically those who are technically good enough to paddle Prem courses but not fit enough (allegedly due to being > 35) to stay in Prem.
Seems sensible in general although I would probably keep the requirement to beg to stay in Prem. it is supposed to be an elite league and why would an elite paddler only do a couple of races if they didn't have a valid reason? There are plenty of good enough Div 1's who this applies to though.
Seems sensible in general although I would probably keep the requirement to beg to stay in Prem. it is supposed to be an elite league and why would an elite paddler only do a couple of races if they didn't have a valid reason? There are plenty of good enough Div 1's who this applies to though.
FatBoy wrote:I don't see why it would remove the need to have a Vet's league?
Currently it takes a lot of time and money to stay in div1 and paddle div1 courses. Becoming a Prem/div1 Vet removes the threat of demotion. Making it easier for good paddlers to avoid relegation from div1 would remove at least some of the reason to have a Vet league.
How can anyone take racing in the Vet league seriously when there are separate Vets in the normal divisions. A good Vet paddler I spoke to, said he didn't care about trophies as he had a pile of them in the loft. If someone doesn't take their racing seriously, and just wants to enjoy a Prem course, then why not judge, or enter as an open event?
However, there is one Prem/div1 Vet paddler I know who has only raced about once in the last 2 years, who would be in the top half of div1 in standard. What would happen to such paddlers ? Perhaps if you score 700-800points (or equivalent) in one race you should be safe from relegation the following year as well ?
Organisers might fear that less people will race once they have avoided relegation. I believe most would continue because they enjoy the competition, and improving retention would mean more competitors.
FatBoy wrote:As I understand it P/1 Vets are basically those who are technically good enough to paddle Prem courses but not fit enough (allegedly due to being > 35) to stay in Prem.
Have you seen how many Prem/1 Vet paddlers there are in the yearbook, and how many races they raced in all year. I wonder how many of these were on Prem courses.
From a health and safety point of view, encouraging unfit paddlers to paddle prem courses, still competing against each other (if any other Vet turns up, although perhaps they cluster like number 60 buses) , might not be the most sensible thing to do.
Mick h wrote:leave the Vets alone there doing no harm.
Maybe you're right Mick. I just thought it would be nice to have all the vets racing in one big happy family. I might be glad of a refuge when I'm not paddling so often, and it would be a great loss if a friend of mine couldn't paddle Prem and div1 courses when he wants (its just a shame its only been once in the last 2 yrs).
-
John Sturgess
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 12:01 am
- Location: Gedling, Nottingham/Long Preston, North Yorkshire
As with so much of these debates, this is only an issue because we try to use our Ranking System for two contradictory purposes.
On the one hand we use it to enable us to say how good paddlers are in relation to each other. Fine: that is what a ranking system is for.
On the other hand - and this is where the damage is done to the sport - we use it to dictate which races paddlers can race at. So paddlers cannot choose to race either on the water that they like best, or, for rapidly improving paddlers, on the challenging water they need.
And yes they can judge - but why should they have to? Almost all races in Germany, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia, the USA, Canada, etc, and a majority of the races in France are open entry. They still have divisionally-split ranking systems. No other country does it the way we do.
We will continue to have these round-and-round debates until we decide to use our ranking system only as a ranking system, and establish open entry for all races.
On the one hand we use it to enable us to say how good paddlers are in relation to each other. Fine: that is what a ranking system is for.
On the other hand - and this is where the damage is done to the sport - we use it to dictate which races paddlers can race at. So paddlers cannot choose to race either on the water that they like best, or, for rapidly improving paddlers, on the challenging water they need.
And yes they can judge - but why should they have to? Almost all races in Germany, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia, the USA, Canada, etc, and a majority of the races in France are open entry. They still have divisionally-split ranking systems. No other country does it the way we do.
We will continue to have these round-and-round debates until we decide to use our ranking system only as a ranking system, and establish open entry for all races.